Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Canada's Gun Registry

...it would be impossible to ensure that licensed individuals do not give their guns to others not holding a license without the registry. The registration of firearms helps to enforce the licensing provisions of the Act.

To explain this, Ms. Cukier provided the example that if an individual has a license and purchases firearms without a registration requirement, there is no way to hold them accountable for those firearms or to prevent them from lending or giving them to an unlicensed person. In other words, registration results in accountability.

In addition, if a prohibition order is placed on someone and their firearms license is taken away, without the registry, the police have no way to know what firearms they should be seizing.

Lastly, Ms. Cukier explained that if guns are stolen after being improperly stored, owners are unlikely to report the theft as required by law. If guns are registered, in effect attaching the name of the gun owners to the firearm, owners are more likely to behave responsibly. Registration is an essential component in preventing the diversion of legal guns to illegal markets.

Clearly, the licensing and registry provisions included in the Firearms Act are interrelated, and licensing on its own cannot do what licensing and the registry can together. As Canada’s Supreme Court pointed out in their 2000 opinion on the constitutionality of the Act, the registry helps police officers to take preventative measures, and also aides in holding people who have misused firearms or sold them illegally responsible for their actions.

Doesn't this sound like an effective way to cut down on the gun flow to criminals? Admittedly, this would inconvenience gun owners, but wouldn't it be worth it?

38 comments:

"To explain this, Ms. Cukier provided the example that if an individual has a license and purchases firearms without a registration requirement, there is no way to hold them accountable for those firearms or to prevent them from lending or giving them to an unlicensed person. In other words, registration results in accountability."

So her entire justification for the registry is that it supports another bad law (licensing)? If it weren't for the licensing, they wouldn't need the registry.

"In addition, if a prohibition order is placed on someone and their firearms license is taken away, without the registry, the police have no way to know what firearms they should be seizing."

You'd think they would take all of them. And even if the firearms are registered, what's to stop the owner from having a "boating accident" and "losing" all of his firearms before the police show up?

"Lastly, Ms. Cukier explained that if guns are stolen after being improperly stored, owners are unlikely to report the theft as required by law."

Only because Canada has decided to punish people who don't properly store their firearms. I bet if they got rid of that law, they'd have more people coming forward to report their stolen guns.

"Clearly, the licensing and registry provisions included in the Firearms Act are interrelated, and licensing on its own cannot do what licensing and the registry can together."

So I was right. It is one piece of bad law supporting another.

This is one of the many reasons I don't support licensing and registration. It's nothing more than bad legislation that leads to more bad legislation being passed to enforce the original bad legislation. And so forth and so forth until you're neck deep in a horribly oppressive brier patch of legislation that you can't even dream of getting rid of because the system has become dependent on it.

Notice how this is always a big theory? No one has ever shown any proof that registration does any of this. Even their Supreme court decision is based upon speculation. If registration has worked so well, where is the evidence?

The usual suspects really have no argument against licensing and registration. The bottomline is they don't like it because it requires them to be responsible for their firearms. Currently, they don't have to be.

I really wish MikeB wouldn't be so quick to suggest such measures "inconvenience" gunloons. After all, all of us are inconvenienced by the fact gunloons aren't responsible for their fetish. We all pay more in terms of healthcare, crime, etc. because gunloons can't be bothered to be responsible. We're all inconvenienced by gun violence.

Interesting article. The comments are also a fun read. I particularly enjoyed this tidbit:

Ms. Cukier is hardly in a position to offer an unbiased perspective on gun control in Canada. Her “Coalition” started out as a charity but had it’s charitable society status revoked after it was determined it was an elaborate tax evasion scheme. Her opinions on the subject are based primarily on an incorrect perception of the general firearms community. Her chief supporter, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, is a for-profit political lobby (in the same way the NRA is in the States), who receives huge sums of donations from CGI, the software company that built and supports the gun registry.

If registration is to be forced on the gun owners, a fair compromise should be reached.

Here's a reasonable compromise:

Assuming that registered owners will have their registration removed when they commit a crime, and only non-criminals will be put on the registry, it seems fair to have the registry completely replace background checks.

Instead of the 4473 form to be filled out (correct me if that's wrong), the registered owner plonks his card down, plonks cash down, walks off with his new purchase.

Also, to offset the inconvenience, the National Registry replaces all current registries and ownership permits. No restrictions, no bans. Ever.

If my former associates in the "anti" camp are serious about advocating mandatory registration, then this would be a fair exchange.

A free human being does not need to ask permission to own their property, nor register it with the crown. Something that is licenced, must be fundamentally lawful, or you wouldn't be able to do it at all (eg: does a rape licence exist?). Adults do not need to beg permission from a fictitious authority composed of other individuals to posess property.

Licencing is used to regulate an action eg; driving, hunting etc. You do not need a licence to own or posess a car. Therefore, you should not need one to posess a gun.

It is currently a criminal offence to posess a gun in Canada under sec 91&92 of the criminal code. This is wrong, as the criminal code should and does focus on criminal actions eg murder rape assault etc, and those crimes have real victims.

Who is the victim of my criminal posession of a gun if my licence were to expire? The state? The state is a collection of individuals representing the crown corporation. No one is harmed. Therefore, it is not a crime.

Don't even trot out the tired "society is harmed" crap. Society is comprised entirely of individuals, and we all have equal rights. A group doesn't have more rights than an individual, that is the primary idea of liberty, which this country was founded on.

Wendy Cukier will be Wendy who in a few months along with the liberal money pit known as the long gun registry. She has been debunked, refuted and marginalized in every mainstream media outlet in Canada. She might have to find a real job when the liberal gravy train ends. She doesn't matter anymore. Canadians have pushed back and this country will once again become the true north strong and FREE.

As a Canadian gun owner, allow me to point out that the registry has been such a complete failure that there's currently legislation before Parliament to scrap it, and it's likely to be history before the end of the year.

It suffered truly horrendous cost overruns (on the order of 7,500%), is riddled with errors to the point where it can't be used as evidence in court, contains fewer than half the firearms known to have been manufactured in or legally imported into Canada, had no discernable impact on violent crime (in fact, firearms homicides started trending upwards after its inception, reversing a decades-long trend) and has yet to prevent a single crime.

Repeating our mistake with firearms registration would be a stupid, preventable waste.

Mikeb said "Doesn't this sound like an effective way to cut down on the gun flow to criminals?"

See the problem in that Mike? You are trying to control the flow of guns when its the criminal that is the problem. Should we also stop the "flow" of knives, bats, swords, pepper spray or in the case of the former attorney general of ontario, cars? Evil people have used tools as weapons since the dawn of time and the only effective way to stop crime is to punish criminals. Criminals get guns illegaly and always will. Lawful firearms owners are continuously screened by the rcmp for any changes to legal status. The registry is a failure.

H.Rosenthal, Thanks for your comments. You said, "You are trying to control the flow of guns when its the criminal that is the problem."

I'm afraid that's not the case at all. The problem, as I see it, lies with the legitimate gun owner who passes his gun to a criminal. These are the people we need to reach. These are the people who, inconvenienced as they'll be, will be able to diminish the flow of guns to the bad guys.

Mikeb- I'm glad your lack of knowledge of English common law makes this amusing for you.

Also, your big push here seems to be preventing licenced gun owners from giving their guns to criminals. Do you have any evidence this has ever happened? A person could simply report their guns stolen, registry in place or not. Licencing in place or not.

News flash for you, we hate criminals more than you do, because unlike you, gun-owners are lumped with the criminals and demonized everywhere, are you?

We want peace and safety as much as anyone, but we realize this CANNOT be provided by government. In the end, YOU are responsible for your own safety. Currently canadians are prohibited from owning guns,knives, pepper spray etc for self defence, and the supreme court has ruled that the police are not required to protect you. So as it stands, we are barred from having the best tools to defend ourselves, and the police have no obligation to protect us.

Why do police have guns? To protect themselves. Are their lives worth more than ours? Stephane Dion had armed body guards during the 2008 election. Is his life worth more than ours or yours? Are brinks drivers lives worth more than ours or yours?

Also, do these humans gain superhuman capabilities once they don their uniforms that enables them to carry and handle a gun safely?

Keep laughing, it's much easier for one to laugh from their ivory tower rather than think.

Look, by almost any measure you put forth the registry is not working. It has already cost Canadians $2 billion dollars. How much real crime prevention could have been purchased with that $2 billion dollars? You could certainly put a whole lot more officers on the street. You could have invested heavily in education efforts. You could have used that money on inner city rebuilding projects. You could have used that money on drug rehabilitation programs. I could go on and on and on. It's time to quit throwing more good money after bad and end the program.

mikeb said "The problem, as I see it, lies with the legitimate gun owner who passes his gun to a criminal. These are the people we need to reach. These are the people who, inconvenienced as they'll be, will be able to diminish the flow of guns to the bad guys."

See the logic fail mike? the "legitimate" gun owner who passes his gun to a criminal is called a CRIMINAL. You sell a gun illegally you are a CRIMINAL whether there is a registry or not. Gun owners are not criminals or they wouldn't have a licence and you think a registry is all that is keeping them law abiding? and you can justify 2 billion so far without half the guns in the system? how bout the handgun registry? the cities are flooded with illegal, untraceable, imported gang handguns and theres been a registry since 1934. Theres the best evidence right there that registries don't work and we don't even have to look any further than our own failed handgun registry right here in Canada. ya think maybe theres other ways for criminals to get guns? must be cus they get them and its NOT from law abiding owners. Read the paper and see the stories on gun violence and you will notice something else interesting, the words are these : breach of probation, failing to comply with a court ordered weapons prohibition, possession of a prohibited weapon, the list goes on. Re-offenders almost always. You expect someone who doesn't follow a law against murder, home invasion, drug dealing, weapons dealing, assault, forcible confinement and rape to follow a law against having a gun? epic fail. Why dont you admit you dont like guns and you want them all banned completely. Why beat around the bush with it? Thats why your registry is failing now, because the liberals lied about what it was for. Its been used for confiscations which was never supposed to be the purpose. Thats why it must go, it was a SHAM from the start.

You expect someone who doesn't follow a law against murder, home invasion, drug dealing, weapons dealing, assault, forcible confinement and rape to follow a law against having a gun? epic fail.

Or for that matter do you expect them to abide by registration / licensing schemes? Even the dumbest gangbanger isn't going to head down to the local police station to tell the government about all the guns he's not supposed to have in the 1st place.

Not to mention that compelling him to do so would be requiring him to self-incriminate.

What you end up with after these licensing / registration schemes is an inaccurate, incomplete database of those who have guns.... except of course the armed violent offenders that you should be most worried about.

@Mikeb: "I don't think that's necessarily the reason it's under attack. It's a very controversial undertaking and just like in your southern neighbor, gun rights groups in Canada are rich and powerful."

As a member of the Canadian gun lobby, allow me to state that I wish that our groups had a fraction of the influence the NRA had. The myth of the Ebil Canadian gun lobby is a total canard.

To put the lack of support that the registry enjoys, recent polling data indicates that most Canadians who support registration still think that the registry should be scrapped. 21 opposition MPs, from parties that had supported the registry in the past, actually voted in favour of the bill abolishing it.

The thing was basically a complete failure, worthless as a public safety measure, and a ghastly waste of resources. We could have put an MRI in every hospital in the country with the over two $2 billion expended on it to date.

I know approximately 1000 firearms owners in Canada personally oth that I might know two who are millionaires.

My T4 says 64 000 a year close to half i end up giving back to the government for one reason or another

Do I sound rich and powerful?

I ask you this......

If we truly do live in a society where everyone is equal then why do only an elite few enjoy armed security or have the privilege of arming themselves?

Mr Michael Bryant's car has killed more people than any of my firearms, funny "he" pulls down 6 figures i don't he was able to hire a public affairs guru ....none of us would. and he wants to take firearms away from people ....the truth is the direct opposite than what you imply in this point.

Licensing systems are very expensive to administer. Canada's experience with its full licensing and registration system, begun in December 1998, is not encouraging. The government originally estimated that the cost of licensing Canada's three million gun owners and registering their seven million guns would be $185 million [Canadian] over five years including a one-time start-up cost of $85 million [Canadian]. But, by March 2000 the Canadian Firearms Centre admitted that the system had already cost Canadian taxpayers $327 million [Canadian] and was running up an annual bill nearly 10 times higher than the government's original forecast. The March announcement also revealed that although 270,000 valid licenses existed from the country's earlier gun control system, only 142,000 new licenses had been issued. Using these figures as a baseline for America's arsenal of 65 million handguns, the estimated cost of such a system here is staggering.

Most importantly, licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence, such as unintentional gunshot deaths, suicides and the majority of homicides, since most homicides are the result of arguments between people who know each other and who purchase guns legally.

From a political perspective, a battle over licensing and registration brings every gun owner into the fray. The NRA argument that licensing and registration is the first step towards gun confiscation has always been very persuasive with gun owners. In contrast, health and safety regulation of the industry focuses on the conduct of firearm manufacturers.

Advocates of licensing and registration often cite automobiles as an example of the value of licensing and registration: we register automobiles and license drivers, so why not guns? However, licensing and registration, the primary purpose of which was to enforce a system of taxation, had virtually no effect on automobile death and injury. It was not until the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration was established in the 1960s, and changes were forced in automobile design and the driving environment, that decreases were seen.

Finally, licensing and registration ignores the public health approach to reducing gun violence and disregards the lessons of consumer product safety by focusing on the user, and not on the manufacturer and the product itself.

In conclusion, licensing and registration can serve only as a supplement to regulation. But it can never substitute for comprehensive health and safety regulation of the gun industry.

Poster's note: That last part is the ultimate goal that VPC head Josh Sugarmann told me about -- a government agency that could regulate (and ban) guns and gun sales for "health and safety" reasons by bureaucratic fiat.

Roderick, Thanks for commenting. I appreciate your Canadian input. You said, "As a member of the Canadian gun lobby, allow me to state that I wish that our groups had a fraction of the influence the NRA had."

It seems to me everything in the Canadian gun world is only a fraction of that in the U.S. This includes the passion and animosity expressed by the debaters on the video.

Still, basing the Canadian model on that of the larger U.S. one may be valid. A small vocal minority drives the gun movement. Most gun owners themselves are not even interested, and naturally non-owners are against lessening the restrictions.

Mike W. said, "Or for that matter do you expect them to abide by registration / licensing schemes? Even the dumbest gangbanger isn't going to head down to the local police station to tell the government about all the guns he's not supposed to have in the 1st place."

Please stop insulting our intelligence and using this shabby trick to derail the conversation. No one ever said we expect criminals to obey the laws. Only you and some of your friends say we say that.

All the gun laws are aimed at the law abiding. Since most guns in the hands of criminals started out legally owned, proper gun laws should encourage the legal gun owners to stop allowing this gun flow.

I agree selling or giving a gun to a prohibited person would make the gun owner a criminal himself. But the way it is now, it's too easy for him to feign ignorance, to turn a blind eye, and to later protest his innocence. Since he's innocent until PROVEN guilty, he gets away with it.

Others are truly ignorant, but even they can be helped by stricter laws to prevent mistakes.

I am and have been a supporter of the gun registry but now I'm not so sure, not when ownership of a two-bit little bird gun – legally acquired, lawfully used and stored in pieces in a trunk for the past 30 years – is sufficient reason for three cops to come to my door and snatch it, after threatening me with a search warrant.

I have a request of you. In your search of gun politics news, how many incidents of Canada or California’s gun registry solving or preventing a crime have you come across? Can you link me to articles you have found, or post some in the future? I am not entirely opposed to gun registration so long as the cost is controlled and reasonable and it was proven to be a strong deterrent to crime. I would certainly be willing to be inconvenienced if it really meant measurable lives were being saved. We all know anecdotal evidence is not prove, but it is at least a starting point to see the types of cases where gun registration made a difference. I would expect gun control groups to cite these reports like they do with incidents of CCW permit holders gone awry, but I don’t see them at all. Is it that they are more interested in opposing carry laws than promoting registration? Or are these cases too rare? Or am I just not looking in the right place? I’d be curious to know.

TS, I'd hate to leave you in the state of curiosity. It must be agonizing. I'll try to come up some answers on that.

Eye of Odin, I can't back anything up. You're right about that. So, why don't you tell us where all the criminals' guns come from. I think you've said before they come from other criminals, but that's not fair. The question is where do they originally come from, not who were the last two owners? The question is where and how did they get into the criminal world.

Please tell us, and your opinion is enough, we don't need proof around here. It's only a blog.

TS: "I am not entirely opposed to gun registration so long as the cost is controlled and reasonable and it was proven to be a strong deterrent to crime. I would certainly be willing to be inconvenienced if it really meant measurable lives were being saved."

That's very similar to my own position. I would like some evidence that, in places that tried gun registration, killings with guns subsequently went down significantly more often than in places without gun registration.

Also, I would like some evidence that the failure of gun registration to reduce killings with guns would not result in still more (here it comes) Draconian gun laws. Britain used to have registration of handguns and pump and semiauto rifles and shotguns, but banned and confiscated them following multiple shootings.

Hi Mike: you wrote: "Still, basing the Canadian model on that of the larger U.S. one may be valid. A small vocal minority drives the gun movement. Most gun owners themselves are not even interested, and naturally non-owners are against lessening the restrictions."

I think the fact that you live in a country with much more enlightened protections on firearms rights than ours may make you underestimate how motivated the Canadian firearms community is in having the firearms registry and the other excesses of our Firearms Act repealed. I've yet to speak to a single gun owner who doesn't want the registry, our magazine capacity limits, restricted and prohibited classifications, ban on handgun hunting, and other pointless restrictions scrapped.

If you think the US firearms rights lobby is vocal, just imagine what it'd be like if they had to suffer what we do.

I don't like to resort to ad mominem attacks, but...Wendy Cukier recently got a facelift, eyebag and nose job--guess that $300,000 or so from the Alain Rock justice ministry finally came in handy.

One of the most staggeringly idiotic things I ever saw was a CBC documentary about two young Jane & Finchers (one Jamaican, the other Vietnamese), with the two FOB-Killer wannabes showing off their caches of illegal weapons, along with drug deals to minors. Yet no cop bothered to get a warrant based on the oodles of probable cause. However, Toronto's PC Chief of Police manages to shake-down elderly, non-criminal Canadian gun owners, many of whom are Veterans, with WARRANTLESS SEARCHES. This is both proof of the uselessness of the Firearms Act, as well as endemic reverse-racism in police forces.

Adam, I agree completely that not being appropriately tough on criminals while harrassing obvious law abiding gun owners is bad.

I also agree there are probably many examples of this.

But I don't agree that the licensing and registration of guns is useless. In fact I think it might be the best way to cut down on the flow of guns to criminals with the LEAST inconvenience to lawful gun owners.